[Talk-us] Usage of exit_to

[Bill R. WASHBURN]

I like how clearly you explain the differences. Since destination= is so
much more intuitive and so much more widely used, should we depreciate
exit_to, indicate on the wiki that exit_to is depreciated, and make a
concerted effort to migrate exit_to exits to destination= exits?

I'm not sure how this migration would be anything other than a manual
process since we're moving from route numbers to destination names.

Here's a question (after a little explanation): in the example in your
diary entry, it appears that exit 91 splits into A and B after leaving the
motorway both from the east and west directions. It also appears that the
northbound ramps join together before merging with the northbound motorway.
The question is, would it be better to add 180104293 to two relations for
the northbound and southbound destination= tags or should that segment have
it's own destination= tag containing both northbound and southbound
destinations? (Can we expect renderers and navigation engines to read the
all of the destination= information from two different relations or should
we be tagging on the actual ways?)

I don't usually participate in large projects like this but I'm willing to
put in the effort on this since it will be such a positive change.


Bill R. WASHBURN


On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Martijn van Exel <m at rtijn.org> wrote:

> I explained it in a diary entry - feel free to comment there or here.
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/mvexel/diary/22419
>
> --
> Martijn van Exel
> http://oegeo.wordpress.com/
> http://openstreetmap.us/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20140703/e2e7d8b1/attachment.html>